View report page

8
£1,390,000, which was to be taken as the sole permanent means
of communication to be provided for East London.
The Vestry at once resolved themselves into a Committee of the
whole Board to consider the question; and the Committee, after
careful consideration, came unanimously to the opinion, that
the site was too far west, the gradients too steep, and the cost
likely to prove excessive in proportion to the benefits to be
derived; and moreover, that the proposed site had been already
condemned by Sir J. Bazalgette. The Vestry adopted the
report.
Every other Vestry and District Board of the metropolis cast
of London Bridge 011 the north side of the river, separately, and
in conference, came to a similar resolution. The Vestries and
District Boards on the south side (except Bermondsey) took no
active steps in the matter, but Bermondsey presented a memorial
in favor,—the fact that the entrance to the subway on the south
side was in the centre of that district being an obvious reason
lor such a step.
The unanimous decision of the Vestries, District Boards and
other public meetings on the north side were in due course
communicated to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and they
were urged not to proceed with the Bill, but the representations
were 111 some instances received with but scant courtesy. The
estimate of the cost of the work, which by the rules of parliament
has to be deposited, puts the amount at £1,900,000, so that in
about five weeks the original estimate had been increased by no
less a sum than £510,000. There is little doubt but that the
estimate will be further increased when the matter is fully gone
into.
It is stated that the Engineer to the Metropolitan Board of
Works only received instructions on the 8th October, 1883, to
report on the best site for a means of communication to be
placed, if only one were to be made. The report was presented
to the Works and General Purposes Committee of the Board
on the 22nd October, and at once adopted, notwithstanding the
efforts of several members, but especially of Mr. E. R. Cook
(Poplar), Mr. Abbott (Limehouse), and Mr. R. Jones, the representative
of this Vestry. On the 26th of October the report of
the Committee was presented to the Board and adopted, notwithstanding
the strenuous opposition of the gentlemen named.
Thus, it will be seen, that in the short space of eighteen days
the Metropolitan Board of Works directed their officer to report
upon, and received and adopted his report, involving the
expenditure of (as was then thought), in round numbers,
£1,400,000.
The Vestry considered that the scheme was in every point of
view a bad one, and had not received the attention which a
subject of such magnitude deserved.
Mr. C. I. Ritchie, M.P. for the Tower Hamlets, has taken a
most active interest in the matter, and will, on the second
reading of the bill, propose that it should be referred to a
hybrid Committee of the House of Commons, so as to enable
the Vestries and District Boards to be heard in opposition to it,
and the Vestry have resolved unanimously that if it be so